Incidentally I think we have both been playing anti-computer chess so far, just in case. I (unusually) plaed the Sicilian, thinking that my more regular choices would not be wise if I were playing a computer, and my opponent for his part has just played 3.d3!

All I will say (too much probably) is that JR has a 'gentleman's agreement'. That will likely serve in this case. But I've lost count (and, for what it's worth [not much], rating points too) of the times I've trusted to that unpoliceable arrangement. Tempation trumps virtue, ahem...often

But since you're here, Paul, never mind that. Solve me this: you're playing Bd 1 for Middlesex in the WH. Your Bd 3 is my hugely loved and very supportive (literally) 4NCL colleague, Peter Ackley. Yet he also features on Bd 10 in the WH for Warks. Apparently, the 'powers-that-be' have nodded this one through Presumably on the grounds he wasn't paired with himself Bizarre, or what?

PA is trying to drag me out to the "Spirit" 4NCL weekend coming up soon. I asked him what "Spirit" was. "Teen Spirit?" "Not quite," was the answer. Think I might be draggable, might see you there, can't promise it, though.

The USCF runs an Internet Server based National league. A player was detected with a chess engine active on his computer during play. I thought they would have neutral arbiters at each playing site to ensure no external assistance. Perhaps that is how they detected the problem, although it's suggested the playing software does the monitoring.

Unless, like the ICCF, you don't outlaw computer assistance during the game, Internet based leagues will be difficult to set up without external costs. You could play for example at an external site with outside supplied computers and a neutral arbiter. That's really just a modernised telephone match.

It seems fairly safe to say that mr Bindrich was caught with his pants down (dreadful pun intended), even though he himself points out that he lost the game for refusing to hand over his phone, rather than for being proven a cheat:

"I want to clarify once again that I was not disqualified by the referee because of cell phone fraud, but because of my refusal to allow him to inspect my cell phone. The reasons for this are complex. First and foremost, I see it as a direct invasion of my privacy. I can allow anyone. really anyone, access to my mobile phone. On it I have, apart from my private data (very private pictures and messages) also sensitive business data. I need to protect this. Releasing the data would cost me my job and important relationships."

Considering the sensitive nature of the data on his mobile, one must really question why did he even bring it with him to the playing hall? Shouldn't he keep it under lock and key 24/7?

It seems fairly safe to say that mr Bindrich was caught with his pants down (dreadful pun intended), even though he himself points out that he lost the game for refusing to hand over his phone, rather than for being proven a cheat:

"I want to clarify once again that I was not disqualified by the referee because of cell phone fraud, but because of my refusal to allow him to inspect my cell phone. The reasons for this are complex. First and foremost, I see it as a direct invasion of my privacy. I can allow anyone. really anyone, access to my mobile phone. On it I have, apart from my private data (very private pictures and messages) also sensitive business data. I need to protect this. Releasing the data would cost me my job and important relationships."

Considering the sensitive nature of the data on his mobile, one must really question why did he even bring it with him to the playing hall? Shouldn't he keep it under lock and key 24/7?

I can't really see anyone being terribly convinced by his excuses. A 'first pass' inspection under the circumstances would surely be unlikely to go further than 'does he have an engine programme on the phone?' and then perhaps 'and if you start up said programme, does it come up with the game position?'. Delving into his 'private information' would require at least a look at his messaging and email programmes and his photo gallery, which require a different set of key-presses.

As already suggested, an obvious solution if you have a smartphone with an engine on it is... not to bring it to the match. You can often swap the SIM card into any sort of ancient 'pre-engine' mobile phone you have lying around.

AustinElliott wrote:
As already suggested, an obvious solution if you have a smartphone with an engine on it is... not to bring it to the match. You can often swap the SIM card into any sort of ancient 'pre-engine' mobile phone you have lying around.

Another low tech solution would be to remove the battery and leave it with the arbiter or in sight of the opponent. Also stops any accidents with the phone deciding to loudly tell the world that it was running out of power.

I'm not at all sure that Bindrich was handled remotely sensibly actually. What they actually did seems to more represent the sort of paranoia that Bridge has sometimes fallen into. (Cheating in bridge is so easy you sometimes have to bend over backwards not to do so accidentally and prescreens there were some really serious scandals.).

It is actually very easy to form a case against someone you suspect of this - you get an arbiter to record when they're out of the tournament hall and compare those moves played directly afterwards with those they play when they're in it. You can do that without anyone noticing and it'll fairly quickly become obvious if there is something genuinely going on. For a reasonably small event, you could probably even do this routinely for everyone leaving the hall during play, thus essentially squashing this sort of cheating at source.

What worries me a bit more is that this (and the French case) are frankly terribly stupid ways to go about cheating. Its not hard to think of information other than directly suggested moves that could be passed essentially invisibly (to someone not leaving the board) and would still give quite a substantial benefit. Or lower profile but much more lucrative targets. Thankfully most people aren't organised in that way but you have to imagine it might be going on.

Thankfully most of the potential techniques you can think of would need a helper so you can control it for really important events. Time lag on live broadcasts, control spectators etc.

MartinCarpenter wrote:
It is actually very easy to form a case against someone you suspect of this - you get an arbiter to record when they're out of the tournament hall and compare those moves played directly afterwards with those they play when they're in it. You can do that without anyone noticing and it'll fairly quickly become obvious if there is something genuinely going on. For a reasonably small event, you could probably even do this routinely for everyone leaving the hall during play, thus essentially squashing this sort of cheating at source.

You would just get any number of false accusations every time someone played a good move. Simpler really is just to insist that :-
(a) you don't leave the board when you are to move
(b) you don't leave the playing area unless you really have to
(c) any electronic device in your possession is switched off and seen to be switched off
(d) you aren't seen to be talking to people during the game

The point is that you track it over time. You've got a few moves each game where someone may or may not have consulted with a computer and a lot of moves where they obviously haven't. Accumulate information over the course of several games and it'll become really obvious if they are in fact doing so, and equally so if not.